Bar Gag Rules Stifle Free Speech

Should a candidate for judge "maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office," as a Florida Bar ethics rule requires? Of course.

But should the Florida Bar's Committee on Standards twist that harmless wording and transform it into an offensive "gag rule'', stifling a candidate from telling voters the truth about an opponent?

Of course not.

Fortunately for freedom of speech and common sense, U.S. District Judge William Stafford of Tallahassee has determined that this ethics rule, as interpreted by the Committee on Standards, violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

He said using it as a gag rule put judicial candidates in an untenable position, forcing them to "choose between self-censorship of protected speech and the risk of disciplinary action."Candidates who violate judicial canons of ethics can be reprimanded, have their right to practice law revoked and even be removed from judicial office.

The case in question involves Larry Schack of Martin County, just north of Palm Beach County, a lawyer who ran for circuit court judge in 1990. Schack wanted to tell voters several facts about his opponent, an incumbent judge. The opponent had been convicted of leaving the scene of a traffic accident, was the subject of three FBI investigations and, as state attorney, had appointed an investigator later convicted of assisting a drug smuggler.

But when Schack submitted a proposed campaign speech including that information to the Bar's Committee on Standards, it rejected it, saying it would violate the rule about a candidate maintaining dignity.

Joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, Schack filed suit, but before the case was decided, he was elected.

There's nothing undignified about telling the truth, even if it hurts. While judicial candidates ideally should concentrate on telling voters about their own credentials, there's nothing unethical about them also informing voters about an opponent's brushes with the law.

This is one one of several recent court cases attacking Bar gag rules, especially a more offensive one saying a judicial candidate may not "announce his views on disputed legal or political issues."This stifles fair political debate and keeps voters from knowing anything about a candidate except the bare facts on his resume.

The ACLU and other critics rightly condemn these restrictions on speech of judges and judicial candidates. The gag rules shield incumbent judges from criticism of their performance in office, let the legal profession silence outspoken mavericks and deny voters essential facts to make informed decisions about political candidates.